Tag Archives: smith

Can Anyone Win the 2016 Republican Nomination?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Ben Smith pours cold water on the idea of Jeb Bush running for president:

The notion that Jeb Bush is going to be the Republican presidential nominee is a fantasy nourished by the people who used to run the Republican Party. Bush has been out of a game that changed radically during the 12 years(!) since he last ran for office. He missed the transformation of his brother from Republican savior to squish; the rise of the tea party; the molding of his peer Mitt Romney into a movement conservative; and the ascendancy of a new generation of politicians — Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, among them — who have been fully shaped by and trained in that new dynamic. Those men occasionally, carefully, respectfully break with the movement. Scorning today’s Republican Party is, by contrast, the core of Jeb’s political identity.

There’s more, and Smith makes a good case without even bothering to mention Bush fatigue.

But I have to say that I’m mystified right now. In 2012, from the very start, I thought Mitt Romney would win the nomination. Basically, the whole contest boiled down to Mitt and the Seven Dwarves, and eventually I figured Mitt would stomp each dwarf and then, battered and bruised, win the nomination.

But this time around, it’s just dwarves. Like Smith, I have a hard time seeing Jeb Bush making a serious run. Chris Christie still seems terminally damaged by Bridgegate, though I suppose that’s still up in the air depending on what future investigations reveal. Beyond that, I guess Scott Walker is still a possibility—though, in the immortal words of Ann Widdecombe, it’s always seemed as if there’s a bit of the night about him. And Paul Ryan, of course, though it sure doesn’t seem like he’s seriously interested in running.

Beyond that, it’s just the usual clown show of nutballs and C-list wannabes. You can make a great case for why none of them can possibly win. And yet, someone has to win. It’s a mystery.

Taken from – 

Can Anyone Win the 2016 Republican Nomination?

Posted in Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Can Anyone Win the 2016 Republican Nomination?

House GOP’s New Anti-Abortion Strategy: Let’s Try NOT Talking About Rape

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Three years ago, House Republicans pushed a bill to permanently eliminate taxpayer funding for abortions. The proposed legislation included an exception for women who had been raped—but only if it the rape was “forcible.” That language—and later, off-color comments about abortion and rape by two GOP Senate candidates, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock—kicked off a national backlash against the Republican party. So this year, the House GOP is trying a new strategy: introducing almost the exact same bill to limit abortion rights, while hoping that cutting out controversial rape provisions will limit the political blowback.

To that end, the GOP-run House of Representatives will vote late Tuesday afternoon on the 2014 version of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, a bill that would permanently ensconce the Hyde Amendment—a temporary measure that has been around since the 1970s and bans federal funding for abortions—in federal law. The bill doesn’t just ban federal funding for abortions, though—it also promises to limit Americans’ ability to buy private-sector health insurance that covers abortion.

Like previous versions of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act that passed the House in 2011 and 2012, this year’s measure has no chance of becoming law so long as Democrats hold the Senate and President Barack Obama occupies the White House. The bills, introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), are designed to signal the Republican party’s priorities to its most hardcore supporters—and more broadly, to provide a taste of what the GOP would have to offer if it gained control of the Senate and the White House. (House Republican leaders have given this year’s version of the bill the number H.R. 7; the low number is a symbolic nod to its high priority.)

Previous versions of Smith’s bill have cost the party politically. The 2011 version launched the “forcible rape” furor. And this year’s bill, which Smith introduced last May, appeared again to raise questions about what counts as rape. An earlier version of the proposal would have required the IRS to verify that a woman claiming a medical expense deduction for abortion on her tax return was not committing fraud. Women may only claim these deductions if their abortions were the result of rape, incest, or life-threatening medical situations—leading anti-abortion activists to assail the bill’s sponsors for mandating IRS “rape audits.”

The bill the House will vote on Tuesday drops the “rape audits” provision. But Sharon Levin, the director of federal reproductive health policy for the National Women’s Law Center, says this is more of a face-saving measure than an improvement.

“They took out the provision that the public had been focused on to make this more palatable, politically,” she says. “The core of what this bill is about has not changed—making it as difficult as possible for women to get access to abortion.”

Continue Reading »

Original link:  

House GOP’s New Anti-Abortion Strategy: Let’s Try NOT Talking About Rape

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Smith's, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on House GOP’s New Anti-Abortion Strategy: Let’s Try NOT Talking About Rape

New GOP House Science committee chair to hold totally objective climate hearings

New GOP House Science committee chair to hold totally objective climate hearings

ryanjreilly

Rep. Lamar Smith, pictured here probably thinking about science.

We’ll admit, we were skeptical when we heard that Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) would be taking over as chair of the House Science committee. This is the guy, after all, who in 2009 awarded major news networks a “Lap Dog Award” for covering climate change. (Lap dogs are known for reporting demonstrably true news.)

Smith has big plans once he takes the reins, including getting to the bottom of this “climate change” thing. The Dallas News reports:

The Texan who just took over as chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, plans a fresh assessment [of climate change], with a hearing in coming weeks on the current state of the environment, according to a committee aide.

“I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles, sun spots, and human activity. But scientists still don’t know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing,” Smith said through an aide. “It is the role of the Science Committee to create a forum for discussion so Congress and the American people can hear from experts and draw reasoned conclusions. During this process, we should focus on the facts rather than on a partisan agenda.”

Man. Great idea, Rep. Smith. Really. Let’s cut through the partisan bullshit and figure out what’s really going on with the climate. Let’s hold hearings! What could be more effective than that?

Well, maybe that just-released 1,200-page report on the climate change effects likely to hit the U.S. over the course of this century. A report years in the making that involves reams and reams of scientific data and research from 300 government and independent scientists. A report drafted by an agency created by Congress. A report that is categorical in its assessment that climate change is real, is happening, and promises to radically shift the country’s environment.

Perhaps a quick peek can answer some of your questions, Rep. Smith! For example, the claim that “scientists still don’t know for certain how much [natural] factors contribute to the overall climate change.” Well, they actually do. It’s this much:

Causes of global warming, per a congressionally mandated government report. Click to embiggen.

As the report states:

Scientists are continually designing experiments to test whether observed climate changes are unusual and what the causes of these changes may be. This field of study is known as “detection and attribution.” Detection is simply looking for evidence of unusual changes or trends. Attribution attempts to identify the causes of these changes from a line-up of “prime suspects” that include changes in energy from the Sun, powerful volcanic eruptions, or human emissions of heat-trapping gases.

Such studies have clearly shown that human activities are primarily responsible for recent climate changes. Detection and attribution analyses have confirmed that a wide variety of recent changes (see CAQs C and H) cannot have been caused either by internal climate system variations or by solar and volcanic influences alone. Human influences on the climate system — including heat-trapping gas emissions, atmospheric particulates, land-use and land-cover change — are required to explain recent changes.

That’s a government report answering your question. So we can scratch that one off the list of questions at the hearing, no?

Maybe you’re curious about what the future has in store for your very own 21st district of Texas? Well, the scientists — including some from the University of Texas! — have an answer for that one, too. [PDF]

Let’s look at water, for example, given the state’s recent history of severe drought.

Increase in dry days in Texas, per the same congressionally mandated government report. Click to embiggen.

Days with little or no precipitation will also be less common in the north, with projections of up to 5 fewer such days. By contrast, large parts of Texas and Oklahoma are projected to see more days with no precipitation (up to 5 more days with little or no precipitation) in the same timeframe …

The trend toward more dry days and higher temperatures across the south will increase evaporation, decrease water supplies, reduce electricity transmission capacity, and increase cooling demands. These changes will add stress to limited water resources and affect management choices related to irrigation, municipal use, and energy generation. …

Increased drought frequency and intensity can turn marginal lands into deserts. Reduced per capita water storage will continue to increase vulnerability to water shortages (Texas Water Development Board 2012).

More desert, predicts a Texas agency. Does that help answer your questions, Rep. Smith? If not, please don’t hesitate to peruse the government’s full report. It really should be able to answer all of your questions. You can say a lot more over the course of 1,200 pages than you can during a three-hour hearing.

After all, as your staff so rightly notes, the last thing we’d want is to sacrifice facts to some nefarious “partisan agenda.” As the only member of Congress willing to stand up to the media’s bias, we know that we can count on you for objectivity.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

More – 

New GOP House Science committee chair to hold totally objective climate hearings

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New GOP House Science committee chair to hold totally objective climate hearings

The new head of the House Science Committee is indifferent to science

The new head of the House Science Committee is indifferent to science

In 2009, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) made a funny joke.

“ABC, CBS and NBC Win Lap Dog Award,” a press release from his office touted. “The networks have shown a steady pattern of bias on climate change,” the funny “award” announcement (it was sarcastic!) read. “During a six-month period, four out of five network news reports failed to acknowledge any dissenting opinions about global warming, according to a Business and Media Institute study.” He was incensed that the networks didn’t cover the dumb, fake “Climategate” “scandal,” which they didn’t because it was dumb and fake.

Lamar Smith put out that press release because he toes the Republican Party line on climate change: It’s not our fault. It’s not the fault, for example, of the oil and gas industry, which has contributed half a million dollars to Smith over his career. His website carefully tiptoes around causation, stating that the “Earth has undergone tremendous change in the past and is experiencing similar change now.”

It is only natural, then, that Smith should be the GOP’s choice to lead the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

ryanjreilly

From The Huffington Post:

On Tuesday afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that the Republican Steering Committee had recommended Smith as the new chairman. The full House GOP caucus will vote on all chairmanships Wednesday and is expected to ratify the steering panel’s choices. …

[Smith] also referred to environmentalists and others who warn about the seriousness of the issue as “global warming alarmists.”

To be fair, Smith presumably believes in both technology and the existence of space. So two out of three ain’t bad.

The amazing thing about this nomination: It could have been worse.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link to original: 

The new head of the House Science Committee is indifferent to science

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The new head of the House Science Committee is indifferent to science